Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03054, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03054    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Motion filed: 7/24/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Larry Brent to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an alleged breach of contract by the insurer defendant. Plaintiff Larry Brent (“Plaintiff” or “Brent”) alleges that Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “State Farm”) refused to compensate him for damages to his insured vehicle, despite a valid policy being in place during the March 7, 2022, incident that caused damages to his vehicle, in breach of the agreed-upon insurance policy between the parties. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-12.)

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant State Farm and Does 1 to 25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Tortious Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (3) Declaratory Relief.

On January 4, 2024, the Department F51 Court sustained State Farm’s Demurrer to the Second and Third Causes of Action and granted its motion to strike references to punitive damages. Plaintiff was granted 30-day leave to amend. (1/4/24 Minute Order.) Subsequently, no amendments were filed by Plaintiff, and State Farm filed its Answer to the Complaint on February 8, 2024.

On July 24, 2024, State Farm filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Motion”).

            No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Defendant State Farm’s counsel, Robert Kubler (“Kubler”), attests that on April 29, 2024, Plaintiff Brent was served with the first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) by U.S. mail. (Kubler Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. “B.”)  This service established that responses were due on June 3, 2024, including five-day extension applicable to the service method. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, 1013.) No responses were received by June 5, 2024. (Kubler Decl. ¶ 6.) Kubler then sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, Thomas M. Bundy (“Bundy”), requesting responses to be served within 7 days. (Ibid.) However, as of June 25, 2024, State Farm had not received any responses to the RFP. (Kubler Decl. ¶ 8.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Plaintiff Brent failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the requests, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a).

Nevertheless, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[t]he court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

Here, Plaintiff Brent did not file an Opposition to the Motion. Nor did he move separately for relief from the waiver. Additionally, there is no record indicating any responses have been subsequently served by Brent prior to the hearing. Consequently, the Court finds that relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision(a) is unavailable in this circumstance.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Larry Brent’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Larry Brent is ordered to serve verified response, without objection, to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.